Design/Build v. Architect
Here is a topic I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on. We are getting ready to renovate a Cobble Hill brownstone that hasn’t been touched in a while. We have interviewed a few architects. Mostly, these architects all say their services will cost 20% of the job. I have also started talking to a few…
Here is a topic I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on. We are getting ready to renovate a Cobble Hill brownstone that hasn’t been touched in a while. We have interviewed a few architects. Mostly, these architects all say their services will cost 20% of the job. I have also started talking to a few design/build firms. For those of you not familiar with this breed, they are a construction company with an in-house designer. The theory is that you will save money on the design aspect by cutting out the 20% architect. Most of the firms seem to have an architect on contract who will stamp the plans. The big disadvantage seems to be that you won’t be able to do a construction bid process…On the other hand, saving that 20% architect (or even 10%, given that you will pay the designer of the firm something) could be pretty damn sweet. My gut is to go with the design/build because I would rather see my money go into the pockets of the laborers who are working their asses off…Would love to hear what people think.
Ditto to the post above…
As a retired Architect now in international community development, I must say that the difference between a house that keeps a high market value and one that benefits from houses that keep a high market value is the work of the Architect. Sad to say, some people benefit from houses on their blocks that have been done by architects who have done a good job and have been adequately compensated.
20% of course is too much. An agreed 10% gives both parties full confidence that the final result must be a susccesful project.
Somehow for the past 20 years we have devalued the benefit that architects bring to any project. Housing in Manhattan keep their value not only because of location but also because most buyers know that professionals are involved who have been trained and bring their best talents to the market.
The old adage … You get what you pay for…
myrnett@gmail.com
Ditto to the post above…
As a retired Architect now in international community development, I must say that the difference between a house that keeps a high market value and one that benefits from houses that keep a high market value is the work of the Architect. Sad to say, some people benefit from houses on their blocks that have been done by architects who have done a good job and have been adequately compensated.
20% of course is too much. An agreed 10% gives both parties full confidence that the final result must be a susccesful project.
Somehow for the past 20 years we have devalued the benefit that architects bring to any project. Housing in Manhattan keep their value not only because of location but also because most buyers know that professionals are involved who have been trained and bring their best talents to the market.
The old adage … You get what you pay for…
myrnett@gmail.com
Do not go with a Contractor (and cut out the Architect) who has an in-house designer or someone to stamp plans. There is a conflict of interest between the two. My very first job as and Architect/Designer (about 10 yrs ago), I worked for a GC who did these type of renovations. He cut corners with construction, used cheaper-end materials, did not spend the proper amount of time on design, there were also many change orders when clients wanted to use higher-end materials and he found ways to hide costs in his contract because the clients did not know enough about construction costs to question. You will not save any money by cutting out the Architect.
Architects take pride in their designs and are the client’s advocates. You can find one for less than 20%.
Squaredrive,
I’m not sure if I get your question entirely, but here goes…
When the job enters construction, it is little different than a traditional method. Any changes need to be approved by the owner before any related work is performed. Change orders are signed by the owner and the contractor.
In addition, having someone from my office heavily involved in the construction progress, on the site daily or at least every couple of days (as opposed to the typical bi-weekly architect’s site visit) keeps me very aware of the day-to-day activities and provides me with a lot of advance notice, and therefore the ability to deal with issues ass soon as they arise, so these kind of changes tend to be few.
And you’re right, many, in fact most, owners stay very involved in the construction process, visiting the site weekly, if not daily. Those that choose not to, I keep up to date with emails, pictures, etc.
Jim Hill, RA, LEED AP
Urban Pioneering Architecture
Jim, if you are still reading this:
Your strategy for the design/bid process makes a lot of sense in that it sets up checks and balances on your bid. However, if you are chosen for the construction, how is the client safe-guarded against your construction team making changes? I mean, many owners oversee construction closely themselves, so maybe someone using this method just stays very involved, but how do you keep the clients informed and comfortable with the process? I’m curious because it seems like the biggest potential negative of this delivery method for the owner.
I would suggest interviewing some contractors FIRST….they typically will have some practical ideas for Mechanics, Electric, Plumbing ect….They can give you ball park estimates so that you have an idea…if you find one that is enthusiastic and aggressive about wanting the job they will give you good advice. Then hire an architect. This way you can save some money on design work and phases ect….I am currently in this situation but further along. I am about to start work fully permitted…I wish I would have talked with my GC prior and along side the Architect…instead of spending a ton of time designing various ideas all of may or not work..only to have a GC’s bid on the designs where as they could have helped and cut your costs.
That IS interesting… It would go a long way to legitimize the structure and provide a measure of regulation. Sounds like a good thing thing to me.
One interesting thing to note is that the AIANYS is lobbying up in Albany for design-build to be allowed.
This is a very interesting debate. Even as an architect and practitioner of “design/build” I agree that there is the potential for cost fixing or cutting corners. However, there are definitely economies derived from the system. Personally, we guarantee that our prices will be lowest among equally qualified bidders.
How do we do that? The client always has the right to bid out the project to several bidders. I assist the owner in this by providing all bidders with drawings and specs, walking them through the project (literally – on site), and coordinating all bids in a line-by-line comparison on a standardized, itemized bid form, which allows us to see which items are out of line with the other bidders, pointing out possible misunderstandings or different assumptions that arise any time you bid a project. The we investigate each bid in light of the spreadsheet, contact the bidders and make sure we’re comparing apples to apples.
The when that’s all done, we present the spreadsheet to the client, including my contractor’s numbers and we see if we’re the lowest. If we are, then great. If not, then I am free to continue the project with the contractor of the owner’s choosing in a standard owner-architect-contractor relationship.
This is in specific response to those concerns, and provides the best of both worlds for our clients.
Jim Hill, RA, LEED AP
Urban Pioneering Architecture